“What got me here,won't get me there”: How the world's best sports coaches successfully adapt their expertise in different environments

Abstract

In high-performance sport, sustained success increasingly hinges on a coach's ability to adapt across varied, complex, and dynamic environments. This study explores how world-class coaches develop and apply adaptive expertise (AE) across multiple high-performance settings. Framed by a pragmatic philosophy, 14 coaches (with a combined success of 55 Olympic medals and 22 World Championship medals across at least two distinct performance environments) took part in semi-structured interviews. Reflexive thematic analysis revealed four core themes: self-awareness (Know Thyself), contextual agility (Context is the Conductor), relational depth (Build Strong Ropes), and continuous growth (Accelerated Learning). Coaches highlighted the importance of experiential learning, reflective practice, performance safety, and cultural adaptation in developing AE. The findings offer a practical framework for developing AE and underscore its value in navigating the uncertainties and transitions inherent in high-performance sport. Implications for coach education, mentorship, and leadership in dynamic performance environments are discussed.

Keywords

Experiential learning mentorship performance safety reflective practice self-awareness

High-performance (HP) sports coaching is a dynamic, complex, and highly contextual practice,¹ requiring coaches to integrate technical knowledge, interpersonal skills, and psychological insight to enhance athlete performance.² The title of this paper intentionally echoes Marshall Goldsmith's influential work on behavioural change and leadership, which explores how the very habits that underpin prior success can later impede further growth and adaptation.³ Goldsmith's framework, though rooted in executive and leadership coaching, resonates strongly within HP sport,⁴ where coaches must navigate a range of challenges such as managing diverse athlete personalities, integrating interdisciplinary science and research, whilst managing the pressure for performance and results⁵ and managing interpersonal conflicts.^6,7 As a result, HP sports environments are subject to frequent change, with success contingent on improvisation, adaptability, and contextual judgment.⁸ Consequently, research identifies adaptability as a defining trait exemplified by successful coaches adapting strategies and leadership approaches based on context, and remaining agile in the face of uncertainty.^9,10 These coaches engage in continuous learning and reflection, frequently updating their methods to remain effective.¹¹

The concept of adaptive expertise (AE) offers a compelling framework to manage these dynamic and changeable contexts.¹² AE describes a coach's ability to not only apply established knowledge efficiently (known as routine expertise) but also to innovate, learn, and transfer that knowledge skilfully across contexts.^10,13 In sports coaching, this translates to adjusting training methodologies, modifying communication styles, and tailoring motivational strategies to suit the diverse needs of athletes,^14–16 to positively impact performance.¹⁷ Consequently, understanding how we go about developing AE is an important step in HP coach development.

Across the HP sports coaching literature, three themes emerge when seeking to develop AE. Firstly, experiential learning can be facilitated by immersion in dynamic environments, handling real-time pressures and solving context-specific problems.¹⁸ Coaches can develop AE through exposure to different performance environments across cultures, age groups, and levels of sport.¹⁹ Exposure to these environments builds knowledge of multiple athlete profiles and contextual demands supporting the deliberate practice of AE.¹⁹ This assists in the development of AE, which can appear to others as an unarticulated “knowing” or “gut instinct” supporting fluent and effective responses when needed.^17,20 This tacit knowledge moves beyond just technical instruction and tactical decision-making, incorporating emotional intelligence, interpersonal adaptability, and cultural sensitivity that informs the optimum coaching approach.²¹ This can manifest in knowing when to adapt a training session in the moment or adjusting communication styles according to situational demands.¹⁴

Secondly, AE is cultivated through continuous learning and reflective practice beyond the coaching experience.²² Reflective practice helps coaches understand their decision-making, the effects of their actions, and refine strategies for the future.²³ This helps coaches to become more attuned and open to feedback, helping them become more effective at linking theory and practice.¹² Furthermore, reflective practice must be intentional and contextually informed, as simply recalling events is insufficient, with coaches needing to interrogate their assumptions, evaluate their reasoning, and consider alternative approaches.^24,25 Coaches who engage in reflective practice critically evaluate their coaching experiences, identify areas for improvement, and experiment with new strategies, enhancing AE.²³ This metacognitive engagement is crucial for transforming experiences into adaptive learning, enhancing professional judgement and decision-making skills.¹²

Thirdly, AE requires coaches to have a robust understanding of sport-specific knowledge, including physiology, psychology, pedagogy, and tactical analysis.^13,26 This depth and breadth of knowledge allow coaches to synthesize wide-ranging information, allowing them to make effective decisions given situational demands.²⁷ Consequently, coaches must have the humility and curiosity to acknowledge and seek gaps regarding this knowledge.^14,24 Coaches, therefore, require engagement in lifelong learning through the pursuit of knowledge via formal (e.g., accredited courses) or informal (e.g., mentorship, peer discussions, observation and experience) channels.^23,28 This engagement with continuous learning supports coaches to develop AE through exposure to new methods, thinking, and empirical evidence to help refine their coaching methods.²⁹

However, there are notable barriers to developing AE in sports coaching which can be understood across macro (cultural and geographical influences), meso (organisational influences), and micro (daily performance environment) levels.³⁰ At the macro level, national culture, demographic and economic conditions are all considerations when developing AE. Cultural and social norms in sport can impede the growth of AE, with coaches’ learning and development closely linked to the informal cultural norms of the country, the sport or the club, thereby being restricted by status quo practices.¹⁰ This cultural adaptation extends to coaches’ ability to manage environmental factors as well as attuning to athletes’ cultural needs, without which, could have a negative performance impact.³¹ Similarly, some environments may not welcome innovative, adaptive methods, demanding a directive, traditional style of coaching.³² This can restrict HP coaches’ capacity to evolve their practice, especially when success is narrowly defined by short-term medal outcomes rather than long-term learning.

At a meso level, national governing body policy and formal coach education can also often act as barriers to developing AE. The structural aspect of traditional coaching education programmes, which tend to be module-based, focus on prescribed models, drills, and competencies that assume a singular way to coach.²³ This can inadvertently promote routine expertise (i.e., repetitive practices) at the expense of AE, neglecting the dynamic nature of HP sport.¹⁸ The oversimplification of the demands on coaches can lead to a significant gap between what coaches are trained in (often static demands) and what they experience in the field (evolving contexts and demands).¹⁵ Consequently, HP coaches may feel pressured to conform to organisational norms rather than experiment with novel or context-specific approaches to coaching.

Finally, at a micro level, coaches can be hindered by their own personal and cognitive barriers of merely performing repetitively without the reflection and critical thinking necessary for the development of AE. This process promotes routine expertise with coaches simply mimicking what their former coaches did without interrogating what works and why.¹ Coaches’ fear of failure or their need for certainty and control, especially during transitions such as moving to a new environment, can also hinder their ability to develop AE through innovation.³³ Furthermore, the relentless performance cycle of HP sport often leaves little cognitive space for structured reflection or collaborative learning, both of which are central to AE development. Without dedicated time for exploration combined with the immediate need to achieve results, coaches risk defaulting to habitual, risk-averse methods rather than adaptive, evidence-informed decision-making.

These barriers underscore that while AE can be cultivated across all levels of sport, the stakes, structures, and pressures unique to HP environments make its development particularly complex. This study, therefore, explores how world-class HP coaches developed and successfully transferred AE across diverse HP environments. Through qualitative enquiry, we aim to provide insight into the conditions and mechanisms which helped develop their AE. This study, therefore, aims to highlight the significance of AE in coaching and propose strategies for fostering AE in HP sports coaches.

Methodology

We adopt a pragmatic philosophy due to the need to understand real-world experiences and produce practical and impactful knowledge to guide actionable insights.³⁴ One of the core tenets of pragmatism is its focus on the interplay between theory and practice.³⁵ Researchers adopting a pragmatic approach are better equipped to navigate complex and dynamic environments, allowing them to adapt their methods and frameworks based on the specific needs of their research context.³⁶ This flexibility is particularly valuable in fields such as organisational studies, where processes and outcomes can vary significantly across settings³⁶ and therefore is appropriate in HP sport where coaching practices are highly situational, socially embedded and continuously evolving.⁸ Reflecting this, a qualitative design was employed to enable the exploration of how HP coaches develop AE to support success across performance environments. Semi-structured interviews were chosen due to their capacity to support depth, nuance, and responsiveness to the individual's experience.³⁷

Participants

Following institutional ethics approval (Dublin City University ref DCUREC/2023/159), 14 world-class sports coaches (13 males, 1 female) average age 55.8 years were recruited through personal contacts (See Table 1). A purposive sampling approach was adopted, informed by the following criterion.³⁸ (1) Participants have experience of achieving significant success, including Olympic level (55 medals), World Cup (x3), World Championship (22 medals) or significantly improving the team / individual's previous results. (2) Each coach had demonstrated success in at least two distinct performance environments, such as transitioning from national to international teams, or working across different sporting and cultural environments. The sports covered include rugby union (4), boxing (2), field hockey (2), diving (1), cricket (1), hurling (1), Gaelic football (1), sailing (1), and Paralympic table tennis (1). The participants have or are currently working across the United States of America, Europe and the United Kingdom. The sample size can be justified by the narrow aim of the study, a dense sample specificity and a case sample strategy in line with information power.³⁹

Table 1.

Participant profile for interviews.

Participant	Gender	Coaching Experience	AE Criteria
Participant 1 (“John”)	Male	16–20 years	Success across 2 different sports
Participant 2 (“Alice”)	Female	30 + years	Olympic success with 3 nations
Participant 3 (“Brian”)	Male	16–20 years	International and club success
Participant 4 (“Colin”)	Male	16–20 years	International and county success across genders
Participant 5 (“David”)	Male	30 years +	Provincial and National titles across 2 counties
Participant 6 (“Ed”)	Male	16–20 years	Provincial and National titles in 2 different stints
Participant 7 (“Frank”)	Male	20–30 years	Success across Olympic and professional sport
Participant 8 (“Gavin”)	Male	30 years +	International and club success
Participant 9 (“Harry”)	Male	20–30 years	Success across 3 nations and both genders
Participant 10 (“Joe”)	Male	20–30 years	Olympic success across 2 nations
Participant 11 (“Larry”)	Male	16–20 years	Success across Olympic and professional sport
Participant 12 (“Mike”)	Male	20–30 years	Experience across international contexts
Participant 13 (“Niall”)	Male	20–30 years	Success across genders and Olympics
Participant 14 (“Owen”)	Male	20–30 years	Success in two different sports and across Olympics

Procedure

A semi-structured interview guide with open-ended questions was chosen aligning with previous research in this area.⁴⁰ This approach is versatile and flexible, allowing for follow-up questions to collect a rich and flexible understanding of the participant's experience.^37,41 The interview guide was underpinned by current AE literature^13,42,43 and the research team's knowledge and experiences of the development of AE. With the interviews exploring the participants’ reflections on the performance impact of AE, the critical milestones in their development of AE and also the skills / behaviours that characterise AE in their context. The first author, therefore, was able to actively co-construct knowledge with the participants.³⁴ This process was facilitated by their role as a performance consultant in HP sport and the second and third authors’ careers in psychology and coach development in sport. This experience is seen as a resource due to an expanded knowledge of the field and context, without which risks reduced quality of findings.^44,45 In total, 14 interviews took place with participants (M duration = 56 min) and were conducted using a mixed-mode approach; ten via Zoom (Zoom Video Communications-Version 6.4.12, San Jose, CA, USA) and four in person.

Data analysis

Interviews were transcribed verbatim before being uploaded to a qualitative software package (QSR NVivo 12) for analysis. Given the study's pragmatic stance, which prioritises actionable insights and the practical application of knowledge, reflexive thematic analysis was employed as the most suitable method for analysis.⁴⁶ Reflexive thematic analysis offers the flexibility to explore patterns and themes in a way that is directly linked to the study's research aims. Pragmatism supports the use of analytic strategies that are fit for purpose and sensitive to context, rather than being bound to a single theoretical perspective.³⁵ Following reflexive thematic analysis guidelines,⁴⁶ familiarisation took place through the researcher immersing themself in the data by reading and re-reading the transcripts and listening to the interview audio files. Initial codes were then generated inductively from the data set. Subthemes were then generated by looking at data through the lens of what factors significantly influenced the successful transition of expertise across environments. These themes were then reviewed and finalised on the basis that they respond to the research question. To ensure the trustworthiness of data, a critical friend reviewed themes and questioned data interpretation, which contributes to confirmability and dependability.^47,48 This approach also helped to ensure the validity of data through investigator triangulation by providing an independent viewpoint.⁴⁹ The final themes offer a practical, theoretically informed account of how HP coaches develop and transfer AE across varied and complex environments.

Analysis

Analysis actively constructed four themes explaining how HP sports coaches successfully replicate success across different environments; Know thyself (self-awareness, maximising strengths, mentor as a guide, and failure as a change agent), Context is the conductor (contextual sensitivity, and cultural adaptation), Build strong ropes (person first, flexing to connect, and safety), and Accelerated learning (curiosity, reflective practice, and the art of the debrief). The context and interpretation of quotes and themes are provided where necessary. Raw data quotations are used from exemplar participants to support and add clarity to the discussion (see Table 2). Throughout the presentation of results, specific sub-themes are presented in italics.

Table 2.

An exploration of the key factors in the development of adaptive expertise.

Theme	Sub Themes	Exemplar Raw Data
Know thy self	Self-awareness	“You have to have an honest view of yourself and go, right, this is who I am, these are my strengths, these are my weaknesses.” (Colin) “There's a bit of an ego when you go into coaching… it takes a bit of time to realise, you don’t have all the answers.” (Brian)
	Maximising strengths	“I'm very independent. I'm not very opinionated, but at the same time, I'm not waiting for people to tell me how to do things.” (David) “I can get along quite well with most people… I was able to use who I am as a person to my advantage.” (Alice)
	Mentor as a guide	“He gave me my first break in coaching – he trusted me when I didn’t even trust myself yet” (Mike) “He was an Olympic champion himself… but he would never just tell you. He let you figure it out. That made me see what good coaching is.” (Larry)
	Failure as a change agent	“There was success, but also no success… it was more like, how do I feel with it? That's when I knew I had to change something.” (Harry) “Beijing was tough. I got caught up in the hype and lost sight of what mattered. After that, I knew I had to go back to basics—connect better, listen more, and not assume I had all the answers.” (Owen)
Context as the conductor	Contextual sensitivity	“You can have your perfect session planned, but if the group isn’t there mentally, it's useless—you’ve got to read it and pivot.” (Colin) “The context is just constantly changing so your ability to work within that ever-changing context tends to be quite important to how you can function in it. It's pretty fundamental.” (Niall)
Context as the conductor	Cultural adaptation	“You are handicapped by language… lack of knowledge about the culture… but I really did enjoy the process.” (Harry) “You’ve got to understand how things work culturally before you start imposing your way. Otherwise, you’ll lose them before you begin.” (Brian)
Build the ropes	Person first	“You’re dealing with people, not players… treat them as you would like to be treated.” (Gavin) “We talked a lot more about life than sport… that's where the real trust came from.” (Alice)
	Flexing to connect	“Some need to be challenged directly, others need space… it's about knowing the person first.” (John) “I knew some of them were very analytical. So for them, you needed to explain the why. Others just wanted to get on with it.” (Frank)
	Safety	“It's very easy to be critical… but I’ve yet to meet a player who makes a mistake on purpose. They need to know they’re safe even when they mess up.” (Gavin) “You have to be open enough that they’ll come to you when something's not right… they need to know you’ll listen.” (Frank)
Accelerated learning	Curiosity	“I always say I’ve never stopped learning. If I did, then I shouldn’t be in the job.” (Owen) “I was curious about how to connect with people in new ways. That's probably what kept me going across so many different cultures.” (Alice)
	Reflective practice	“Well, usually it comes down to the quality of reflection that precedes the experience.” (Colin) “You ask yourself afterward, did I handle that the best way? That's the only way you learn.” (Frank)
	The art of the debrief	“Debriefing has to be honest and safe—otherwise people just say what they think you want to hear.” (John)″ The debriefs weren’t just technical. They were emotional. What was the feeling? What stuck with you? That's where change started.” (Harry)

Know thyself

“It took self-awareness to realise I was the one that needed to adapt” (Alice)

This theme reflects the importance of self-awareness in developing AE – specifically being able to understand your strengths, your limitations, and how and when to adapt.

Self-Awareness

Self-awareness is a key component for developing AE, aligning with AE descriptions regarding monitoring and modifying both thinking and behaviour.¹³ Literature shows that a lack of self-awareness inhibits performance by impairing one's ability to self-monitor, adapt, and respond appropriately, which is not conducive to dynamic environments such as HP sport.⁵⁰ Conversely, higher levels of self-awareness has been shown to correlate with superior performance ratings.⁵¹ Colin highlighted this; “It's knowing yourself, isn’t it? If you know yourself, you’ve got a chance.” With self-awareness deemed as a pre-requisite to quality coaching, “you have to know yourself before you coach others” (John). Importantly, a lack of self-awareness was considered performance-limiting with blind spots compromising the impact of decision-making; “In the lead-up to Beijing, a lot of my focus was on the performance piece… but I probably wasn’t thinking enough about how I was influencing others, how I was connecting” (Owen). This view was supported by Niall: “I’ve come to the conclusion that actually I wasn’t very self-aware. That I wasn’t really thinking about the impact I was having on others”.

Maximising strengths

The subtheme maximising strengths was particularly evident in how participants discussed their professional attributes and their contribution to success. This attribute builds on self-awareness, facilitating a metacognitive understanding of themselves, and their strengths at a deeper level.⁵² This also links with the literature on strengths-based psychology, which focuses on the identification and application of an individual's core strengths to optimise performance.⁵³ This is a recurring theme in the data where coaches reference leveraging their natural strengths for performance, with Colin reflecting, “I instinctively can feel a room and an environment as a strength”. Similarly, Ed gave an example of leveraging strengths for real-time adaptability: “I'd say one of my strongest traits as a manager is being able to read the room immediately, changing sessions on the fly”. These responses demonstrate pedagogical agility and situational awareness, which are essential dimensions of AE in coaching.^54,55

Importantly, the ability to strategically deploy and contextualise your strengths (knowing when it becomes a weakness) is critical for AE, known as the tension between routine and innovation – when to apply their default strengths and when not to in order to be effective.⁵⁶ Niall exemplified this point by recognising a context when they overplayed their strengths:

I have a preference for preparing teams from a prudent standpoint, analysing threats… but the player feedback was “can you talk more about the opportunity and excite us about what we're going to do?” And I thought long and hard about that… I really missed the mark there.

This awareness of overplaying strengths reflects the skill required when assessing context and optimally leveraging your strengths for performance.⁵⁷ This strategic optimisation of strengths also aligns with the adaptive use of reflective judgement, where HP coaches continuously adjust their behaviours in response to contextual feedback and interpersonal dynamics.⁵⁸ Therefore, maximising strengths is an ongoing process of calibration that contributes directly to the contextual and innovative characteristics at the heart of AE.

Mentor as a guide

Mentorship was consistently referenced as a catalyst for the development of AE. Participants described mentors not only as technical advisors but also as role models of adaptability, shaping their coaching philosophy through reflective, relational engagement. As Niall explained, “whether it's mentoring or a coach of coaches… is to take some of those real-time, real-life experiences and make sense of them”. This aligns with recent research emphasising the importance of experiential, contextual and authentic learning experiences.⁵⁹ Harry highlighted this relational depth, recalling a coach who “was investing in us, in the human relationship… he was far ahead when now everyone is talking about soft skills and mental health… he really taught me how it should be done and could be done”. From a pedagogical perspective, mentorship serves as a vital developmental mechanism to develop AE and learn to navigate the volatility, ambiguity and complexity of HP sport. Through guided reflection and exposure to real-time contexts, mentors can aid understanding and promote non-linear learning.^58,59 These processes help develop the metacognitive and contextual flexibility required to shift from routine to adaptive responses.^40,60

Failure as a change agent

Participants articulated the role of failure as a catalyst for AE development. For example, “the first time we lost badly, it hurt… but it made me listen more. That loss helped me shut up and actually hear what the group needed” (John). This highlights how failure shifts perspectives and enhances adaptive learning by fostering empathy and deeper listening, aligning with the assertion that meaningful learning often comes from setbacks and the transformative potential of failure.^61,62 Joe's observation, “failure was always part of the learning” encapsulates this development of AE, where expertise is not static but continuously evolving through cycles of performance, reflection, and refinement.²⁶ Furthermore, David highlighted; “I needed to learn from those experiences. I didn’t always get it right”; and Joe reflected “It was a big learning curve for me. I had to look at myself.” Therefore, what is evident here is that meaningful learning experiences with negative consequences were a necessary feature of AE development.⁶¹ This results in a process that develops a more agile coach with a better set of adaptive tools, encapsulated by Colin, “we made naive mistakes. But I think my strengths now come from going through that… you have little second comings.”

Context is the conductor

“You’ve got to feel the room before you follow the plan.” (Joe)

This theme illustrates that HP coaches do not merely execute excellent technical plans, instead they interpret and respond to the subtleties in the environment by being contextually sensitive to the demands of the situation and also through being culturally adaptive by recognising what methods are appropriate to the culture they are operating in.

Contextual sensitivity

Contextual sensitivity supports HP coaches to respond effectively to the ever-changing demands of HP sport and implement the most appropriate strategy for the context. This reflects professional judgement and decision-making, which views coaching as situational sense-making as opposed to rule-following.⁶⁰ Ed captured this in their reflection on adapting a session: “they walked into the room in great form. I knew we’d beat the opposition just by the way they carried themselves. So I scrapped the stats session and kept the vibe light – they didn’t need it.” This encapsulates the concept of pedagogical agility, which refers to a coach's ability to modify their behaviour in response to the evolving needs of both the athlete and the context.⁶² Such pedagogical agility allows coaches to alter plans in favour of the emergent needs of the team or tailoring tactics or sessions depending on energy levels, mood, and performance.⁶² John gave another example: “I had to change it in the moment, the mood was off, so I binned the plan and went back to basics.” The skill required to be able to pick up on nuance and adapt can appear impulsive however, it is the product of the experience and intuition that characterises expert coaches.⁵² This pedagogical agility aligns with the contextual agility of AE, which captures a coach's capacity to interpret situational cues and adjust strategies responsively to the demands of context.^13,63 This was highlighted by Gavin, who described his method of contextualising his approach with teams, highlighting a core coaching philosophy which encompasses nuance based on contextual demands: “I give them a bit of structure, but I adapt based on what they want or what they need. That's the mix.”

Cultural adaptation

Cultural adaptation is critical for the development of AE, particularly within globalised and multicultural environments. Cultural adaptation can challenge an individual's habitual behaviours, requiring significant behavioural flexibility and emotional resilience.⁶⁰ This aligns with the broader literature on AE, which emphasises the capacity to respond effectively to novel and complex situations. Participant testimonies illustrate this process with Alice noting, “I had to adapt to their culture. I had to be much more patient, and that was really difficult”, revealing how AE often involves a shift in deeply ingrained habits. This is validated by Harry, who reflected that “it was really a challenge, and you are handicapped by language, you are handicapped by lack of knowledge about the culture and everything.” Cultural adaptation, therefore, extends beyond surface-level adjustments, requiring coaches to internalise new ways of thinking and interacting, which is consistent with the concept of situated learning.⁶⁴ Communication plays a pivotal role in this adaptation: “Communication was a big part of it and learning how to communicate at different levels with different people … there's a hybrid of cultures in the States” (Joe). Echoing research on intercultural competence as a core component of leadership and team development.⁶⁵ These insights confirm that cultural adaptability is not only essential for professional success but a foundational element of developing AE.

Build strong ropes

“You need to see the person before the player” (John)

Several participants highlighted that deep relationships and trust are inherent and fundamental to any adaptive success that they experienced, pointing to this need as a foundation for adaptability.

Person first

Developing AE in coaching is deeply rooted in prioritising the individual and building meaningful relationships. Coaching is inherently relational, and effectiveness often depends less on technical knowledge and more on the quality of interpersonal engagement.⁴⁰ Ed reflected, “you can’t force tactical changes on players you haven’t built a relationship with. It just doesn’t work that way,” underscoring the importance of trust as a precursor to meaningful influence. With the coach-athlete relationship central to performance enhancement, with closeness, commitment, and complementarity being key relational components.⁶⁶ Joe similarly noted: “You earn the right to coach them. And once you’ve earned that trust, then you can start influencing tactically”, illustrating how relational investment fosters AE. Once trust is established, there is a performance advantage to be gained: “You have to care about them and they’ve got to feel you care about them and then they’ll try harder, and they’ll push harder, and they’ll listen more” (Frank).

Flexing to connect

Flexing your communication style to connect effectively with others is another crucial component of AE, particularly in dynamic interpersonal environments like HP coaching.⁶⁷ Niall stated, “you’ve got to read the room … adapt your tone, your presence, even your language depending on who's in front of you”. This behavioural flexibility is a defining feature of AE, where effectiveness hinges on the ability to tailor one's approach to the needs, preferences, and emotional states of others.⁸ Joe expanded on this idea: “Connections with people, figuring out who they are … finding a trigger and a button somewhere that motivates them”, demonstrating a personalised approach to performance. Similarly, Frank noted, “some lads need pushing, some need protecting”, highlighting the need for tailored communication in line with research stating that coaches need to operate between a continuum of rigorous expectation and empathic reinforcement.¹¹ Therefore, the ability to adapt language, tone, and delivery based on interpersonal variables is a vital component of AE and links in with the literature on situational sense-making.⁵⁵ Moreover, it is important to not only knowing what to communicate but how and when to optimise impact. ²⁴

Safety

The development of AE in coaching is closely linked with the creation of performance safe environments where athletes and staff feel safe to express themselves, take interpersonal risks, and learn from mistakes, while concurrently operating within a framework of uncompromising performance expectations.^66,67 Given the high-stakes context of elite sport, this notion of performance safety safeguards performance standards, as well as encouraging exploration and expression.⁶⁹ As Joe described, “I've never been that type of coach just knocking down or shouting down at athletes… that's creating that environment where they feel safe, they can speak with you”. This emotional safety fosters open dialogue, feedback, and experimentation - key mechanisms for learning in complex performance environments.^68,70 Ed reinforced this idea, stating, “the most important thing for me is trying to create a really open and safe environment, and that's kind of built on trust”. Such environments empower coaches to question assumptions and adapt in response to real-time challenges, a hallmark of AE.⁵⁶ Ultimately, as Colin succinctly put it, “It's about creating an environment where people can be themselves”, a prerequisite for the critical thinking and reflective practice that underpin AE in coaching. This environment aids in developing coaching attunement (i.e., the coach's ability to pick up on the environmental and interpersonal cues that indicate when and how to adapt).⁵⁵ According to situational strength theory, adaptive behaviours are more likely to occur where strong cues, which are supported by safe environments, are present.⁷¹ These cues then become the data points that adaptive expert coaches rely on to inform their in-the-moment pedagogical agility.⁶²

The HP aspect of elite sport requires performance safety to ensure critical performance standards are protected.⁶⁹ As Owen highlighted, “high-performance is about accountability. It's about people being challenged, it's about people being stretched because in a performance environment, standards are non-negotiable, they are not up for debate”. This is further exemplified by Joe; “for them to just remain on the team, they are going to have to be successful”. This duality of both support and challenge is termed driven benevolence in elite coaching⁹ and is supported by Alice; “The better the athlete I coached, the bigger the expectation, the more pressure… the more adaptability I needed. I think your adaptability goes in correlation to your ability to win.” Ultimately, this performance safety allows adaptability to be grounded in purposeful learning rather than aimless trial and error with the outcome being performance-enhancing as captured by Niall; “we were trying to create performance clarity but also allow space for the individual brilliance and decision-making of the players to flourish”.

Accelerated learning

“You don’t just become adaptable overnight. You screw it up, take the hit, learn fast, and adjust.” (Ed)

The final theme captures how HP coaches accelerate their learning, aiding AE development, as effective continuous learning and reflective learning from mistakes is essential.⁷² The above quote by Ed summarises this process.

Curiosity

Curiosity and lifelong learning appeared to be key drivers in the development of AE among HP coaches. AE is characterised by the ability to respond flexibly and innovatively to novel challenges, and such capacity is fundamentally rooted in an ongoing commitment to learning.^13,14 Data revealed that coaches were not afraid to take risks and try things, as illustrated by Frank: “Trial and error is how I figured most of it out. You need the freedom to get it wrong before you get it right”. This aligns with literature suggesting that coaching expertise is developed through iterative decision-making in context, where both success and failure are essential learning data.⁶⁰ Lifelong curiosity was further evidenced by Owen: “I’m a student of coaching …”, and Alice: “I still go to conferences… I love speaking to young coaches now.” This peer engagement was echoed by John: “We were deep learners, constantly reading, discussing, and evolving our coaching philosophies.” These forums where communities of practice and the learning that can emerge can play a fundamental role in developing AE.⁵⁶ This curiosity can lead to coaches revising RE patterns learned in their formative coaching years as evidenced by Niall: “I think part of developing is unlearning… that was really valuable for me, to have to unpack and reconstruct.” This process mirrors the reflective–unlearning cycles emphasised by literature suggesting unlearning as essential in the journey toward adaptive, context-responsive professional practice.⁷³

Reflective practice

Reflection and metacognition emerged as critical components to the development of AE, reinforcing the view that AE is not simply accumulated through experience but cultivated through intentional learning and reflective refinement.²² Reflective practice enables coaches to process their experiences, evaluate the consequences of their actions, and refine future strategies. An iterative process that sharpens their coaching intuition.²³ This was echoed by participants. Colin admitted, “You step back, reflect, and sometimes you realise… I was the problem”mpa#rdquo;. Highlighting both metacognitive awareness and the emotional resilience required to challenge one's assumptions, key components of AE.^43,74 Alice captured this capacity for learning through discomfort: “You learn more from the ugly days than the perfect ones, but only if you’re willing to look.” This reflects psychological flexibility, where adaptive learning hinges on the ability to reframe failure into insight.⁷⁵ Joe reflected on the practical application of metacognitive thinking: “I lay in bed at night… How am I going to make this more interesting? How am I going to get more benefit for the athletes out of this?”, demonstrating reflection as a continual drive to innovate and enhance practice, which differentiates more adaptive practitioners from novice practitioners.⁵⁴ Therefore, embedding structured reflection and fostering metacognitive habits are essential for transforming lived coaching experiences into the flexible, context-responsive knowledge that characterises AE.

The art of the debrief

Debriefing significantly accelerates AE development by enabling coaches to transform experience into actionable insight, especially when reflections are jointly constructed among coaches and athletes. With research suggesting that individual reflection followed by collective discussion enhanced reflective depth, pattern recognition, and team adaptability.⁷⁶ Niall explained their debriefing process: “[I] gave the data back to the player group, who then met separate from staff and coaches … trying to identify the very sort of small issues that could, over time, become the big issues.” This is an example of how coaches use collaborative debriefing to unearth potential issues to change course and recalibrate before big issues arise, which is key to AE development.⁴² John noted that debriefing becomes part of the group's learning culture: “Debriefing after both wins and losses was huge for us. That's where the learning sits.” This was validated by Alice: “I’ll watch a video back or talk to my assistant coach and say, did that work, did it not?” This aligns with expert coaching research emphasising that post–session analysis, especially when collaborative, enhances AE by challenging routine responses and supporting continual recalibration.^74,77 Failure to embrace appropriate debriefing results in a risk of rigidly sticking to routine expertise, not adapting and suffering a negative performance outcome as highlighted by Owen: “I think in those moments where things didn’t go well, that's when I probably learned the most. It made me stop and think, what could I have done differently?”

Implications for practice

Developing AE in HP coaching requires a multifaceted approach that moves beyond technical and routine expertise. The findings from this study offer a framework and strategies that can be used to foster AE in dynamic HP environments.

Firstly, we know that AE is not cultivated in isolation and requires contextual learning through situated practice. Coaches in this study consistently described learning in the flow of dynamic environments, responding to uncertainty, volatility, and change. Therefore, coach education must move beyond the classroom and embed coaches in authentic learning environments that reflect the complexity of their roles.^13,15 This requires embedding real-world case studies, mentorship, and situated reflective practice into coach development pathways where coaches can cultivate deeper metacognitive skills and contextual sensitivity.⁶⁰ In particular, mentorship appears to strongly support the development of AE. Mentors serve as both role models but also serve as conduits for feedback loops, reflection, and cognitive unlearning.⁵⁹ Integrating and formalising mentorship within development systems allows for the cultivation of metacognitive awareness, a vital component of AE.¹² Similarly, structured reflection and joint debriefing promote collaborative sense-making and continuous calibration, which is essential for accelerated learning.⁷⁶ Secondly, creating performance-safe environments is critical for developing AE.^68,69 Fundamentally, AE moves beyond technical proficiency as it is deeply relational. Coaches must, therefore, be supported to build performance safety, flex communication styles, prioritise the person behind the athlete and adapt to the cultural context in order to maximise effectiveness in transferring their expertise.^31,67 This requires coach developers and leaders to role-model these behaviours and create cultures that support experimentation, feedback, and trust. Without cultivating this environment, coaches will miss out on the vital cues that will inform their requirement to adapt.^55,71 This focus on performance safety creates a learning environment anchored in both accountability, experimentation, and excellence.

Thirdly, AE thrives in environments that encourage lifelong learning and curiosity.^13,43 Clubs and governing bodies can facilitate this by establishing learning communities, offering opportunities for cross-disciplinary exposure, and creating space for reflection. Personality profiling, such as Spotlight⁷⁸ was referenced a number of times in the data as a mechanism to understand behavioural and mindset preferences as well as communication preferences. Through these pedagogical tools, coaches can be encouraged to engage in self-inquiry and unlearning routine expertise that is no longer relevant.⁷³

Collectively, these approaches help coaches become not just more experienced, but more adaptive - better able to respond to complexity, uncertainty, and change. As such, fostering AE should be a strategic priority for any organisation striving for sustainable high performance in sport, whereby transitions can be seen as opportunities for AE growth as opposed to threats to performance.

There are several limitations to this study. First, the retrospective nature of the interviews required participants to recall and reconstruct past experiences, which may have introduced recall bias or selective interpretation when describing AE development.^38,41 Future longitudinal or ethnographic research observing AE development in real time would provide further valuable insights.

Second, the sample included only one female participant, which limits the transferability of findings to female HP coaching contexts. As gendered experiences can shape learning, identity, and adaptation in coaching,^67,79 future research should explore how AE may be developed and expressed differently by male and female coaches.

Third, while the purposive sample provided rich, information-dense data,³⁹ it was a relatively small sample composed exclusively of world-class coaches. This limits the broader applicability of findings to emerging or developmental coaching contexts. Exploring AE development across different levels of expertise and performance environments could therefore provide a more comprehensive understanding. Collectively, addressing these limitations could help translate the current AE framework into applied coaching systems, providing evidence-based strategies to support the development of adaptable, reflective, and contextually agile practitioners across the HP landscape.

Conclusion

This study offers a rich exploration of how HP coaches cultivate and transfer AE across diverse performance environments. Findings emphasise the importance of self-awareness, contextual sensitivity, relational depth, and reflective practice in navigating complex, evolving challenges. AE emerges not from technical knowledge alone, but through continuous learning, emotional intelligence, and the ability to personalise coaching approaches. By highlighting the dynamic interplay between individual traits and situational demands, this research provides a practical framework for coaches and organisations seeking to thrive in HP sport through more agile, person-centred, and contextually responsive coaching practice. The results add to the growing literature on the development of AE and provides a framework that can be used by coaches transitioning to new roles or environments or simply to aid the development of AE in practice.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Declan T. O’Connell

Robin D. Taylor

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Dublin City University Research Ethics Committee (approval no. DCUREC/2023/159) on 06/2023. Informed consent was obtained prior to participation in this study.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Cushion

. Modelling the complexity of the coaching process. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2007; 2: 395–401.

Abraham

Collins

Martindale

. The coaching schematic: validation through expert coach consensus. J Sports Sci 2006; 24: 549–564.

Goldsmith

. What got you here won’t get you there: how successful people become even more successful. New York, NY: Hyperion, 2007.

Jenkins

. What got you here won’t get you there: coaching transitions. Annu Rev High Perform Coach Consult 2010; 1: 91–102.

Mallett

Lara-Bercial

. Serial winning coaches: people, vision, and environment. Sport and Exercise Psychology Research. 2016; 1: 289–322.

Jones

Armour

Potrac

. Sports coaching cultures: from practice to theory. 2nd edn. London: Routledge, 2018.

Wormhoudt

Savelsbergh

Teunissen

, et al. The athletic skills model: optimizing talent development through movement education. London: Routledge, 2017.

Collins

Taylor

Ashford

, et al.

It depends coaching – the most fundamental, simple and complex principle or a mere copout?

Sports Coach Rev 2022; 11(1): 1–21.

Lara-Bercial

Mallett

. The practices and developmental pathways of professional and Olympic serial winning coaches. Int Sport Coach J 2016; 3: 221–239.

10.

Lindsay

Spittle

. The adaptable coach – a critical review of the practical implications for traditional and constraints-led approaches in sport coaching. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2024; 19: 1240–1254.

11.

Mallett

Trudel

Lyle

, et al. Serial winning coaches: people, vision and environment. Eur Sport Manag Q 2016; 16: 457–478.

12.

Martindale

RJJ

Collins

. Enhancing the evaluation of effectiveness with professional judgment and decision making. Sport Psychol 2010; 24: 458–472.

13.

Hatano

Inagaki

. Two courses of expertiseIn: child development and education in Japan. New York, NY: Freeman, 1986, pp.262–272.

14.

Ashford

Taylor

Newcombe

, et al. Coaching adaptive skill and expertise in premier league football academies—paving a way forward for research and practice. Front Sports Act Living 2024; 6: 1386380.

15.

Cushion

Stodter

. Developing (adaptive) coaching expertise. In: Science and soccer. London: Routledge, 2023, pp.183–196.

16.

Jowett

Cockerill

. Olympic medallists’ perspective of the athlete–coach relationship. Psychol Sport Exerc 2003; 4: 313–331.

17.

Nash

Collins

. Tacit knowledge in expert coaching: science or art? Quest 2006; 58: 465–477.

18.

Cushion

Armour

Jones

. Coach education and continuing professional development: experience and learning to coach. Quest 2003; 55: 215–230.

19.

Cushion

Partington

Nelson

. Coach learning in high-performance sport: pedagogic practices in a complex, dynamic environment. Sport Educ Soc 2022; 27: 371–384.

20.

Sternberg

Horvath

. Tacit knowledge in professional practice: Researcher and practitioner perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.

21.

Cropley

Miles

Hanton

, et al. Exploring the relationship between effective coaching behaviours and reflective practice. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2007; 2: 275–287.

22.

Hughes

Cushion

Griffiths

, et al. Mentoring as a vehicle for developing adaptive expertise in high performance sport coaching. Int Sport Coach J 2021; 8: 233–240.

23.

Gilbert

Trudel

. Learning to coach through experience: reflection in model youth sport coaches. J Teach Phys Educ 2001; 21: 16–34.

24.

Nash

Sproule

Horton

. Excellence in coaching: the art and skill of elite practitioners. Res Q Exerc Sport 2012; 83: 370–378.

25.

Schön

. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1983.

26.

Ericsson

. The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In: The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp.685–706.

27.

Collins

Burke

Martindale

, et al. The illusion of competency versus the desirability of expertise: seeking a common standard for support professions in sport. Sports Med 2015; 45: 1–7.

28.

Stoszkowski

Collins

. Sources, topics and use of knowledge by coaches. J Sports Sci 2016; 34: 794–802.

29.

Piggott

M"uller

Chivers

, et al. Interdisciplinary sport research can better predict competition performance, identify individual differences, and quantify task representation. Front Sports Act Living 2020; 2: 14.

30.

De Bosscher

Bingham

Shibli

, et al. The global sporting arms race: An international comparative study on sports policy factors leading to international sporting success. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer Sport, 2008.

31.

Ordeix

Alcaraz

Belza

, et al. Cultural adaptation of the assessment of coach emotions to the spanish sports context (ACE-E). Int J Sports Sci Coach 2024; 19: 1395–1405.

32.

Potrac

Jones

Armour

. It’s all about getting respect’: the coaching behaviors of an expert English soccer coach. Sport Educ Soc 2002; 7: 183–202.

33.

Taylor

Werthner

Culver

. A case study of a coach’s experience in facilitating her own learning: learning through reflection on experience. Sports Coach Rev 2014; 3: 156–170.

34.

Giacobbi

Poczwardowski

Hager

. A pragmatic research philosophy for applied sport psychology. Sport Psychol 2005; 19: 18–31.

35.

Biesta

. Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori

Teddlie

(eds) SAGE Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2021, pp.95–118.

36.

Kelly

Cordeiro

. Three principles of pragmatism for research on organizational processes. Methodol Innov 2020; 13: 2059799120937242.

37.

Kailio

Pietilä

Johnson

, et al. Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. J Adv Nurs 2016; 72: 2954–2965.

38.

Creswell

Poth

. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 4th edn. Sage Publications, 2018.

39.

Malterud

Siersma

Guassora

. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res 2016; 26: 1753–1760.

40.

Cushion

Nelson

Armour

, et al. Coach learning and development: a review of literature. Leeds, UK: Sports Coach UK, 2010.

41.

Smith

Sparkes

. Interviews: qualitative interviewing in the sport and exercise sciences. In: Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise. New York, NY: Routledge, 2016, pp.125–145.

42.

Bohle Carbonell

Stalmeijer

Könings

, et al. How experts deal with novel situations: a review of adaptive expertise. Educ Res Rev 2014; 12: 14–29.

43.

Schwartz

Bransford

Sears

. Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In: Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 2005, pp.1–51.

44.

Hall

Taylor

, et al. Coherence in selection: the influence of Coaches’ views and beliefs on nominations for a male rugby union talent system. Psychol Int 2024; 6: 695–709.

45.

May

. Social research: issues, methods and process. 4th edn. Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education, 2011.

46.

Braun

Clarke

. A critical review of the reporting of reflexive thematic analysis in Health Promotion International. Health Promot Int 2024; 39: 1–11. DOI: 10.1093/heapro/daae049

47.

Sparkes

Smith

. Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health: from process to product. London, UK: Routledge, 2013.

48.

Lincoln

Guba

. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1985.

49.

Yardley

. Demonstrating the validity of qualitative research. J Posit Psychol 2017; 12: 295–296.

50.

Goleman

. Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books, 1995.

51.

Bratton

Dodd

Brown

. The impact of emotional intelligence on accuracy of self-awareness and leadership performance. Leadersh Organ Dev J 2011; 32: 127–149.

52.

Martindale

RJJ

Collins

. The development of professional judgment and decision making expertise in applied sport psychology. Sport Psychol 2013; 27: 390–398.

53.

Clifton

Harter

. Investing in strengths. In: Cameron

Dutton

Quinn

(eds) Positive organizational scholarship: foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 2003, pp.111–121.

54.

Mees

Sinfield

Collins

, et al.

Adaptive expertise – a characteristic of expertise in outdoor instructors?

Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 2020; 25: 423–438.

55.

Collins

. The role of situational awareness in the professional judgement and decision-making of adventure sport coaches. J Expert 2022; 5: 117–131.

56.

Pelgrim

Hissink

Bus

, et al. Professionals’ adaptive expertise and adaptive performance in educational and workplace settings: an overview of reviews. Adv Health Sci Educ 2022; 27: 1245–1263.

57.

Hutton

Ward

Gore

, et al. Developing adaptive expertise: a synthesis of literature and implications for training. Bath, UK: University of Bath, 2017.

58.

Rynne

. Coaching identity and the transfer of learning: a longitudinal investigation of Australian swimming coaches. J Sports Sci 2014; 32: 1694–1704.

59.

Sawiuk

Leeder

Lewis

, et al. Planning, delivering, and evaluating formalised sport coach mentoring: exploring the role of the programme director. Sport Coach Rev 2022; 13: 342–361.

60.

Collins

Martindale

Abraham

. Professional judgment and decision making in sport: the role of intention for impact. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol 2015; 4: 52–62.

61.

Lynch

Orsino

Kawamura

. Productive struggle and failing safely: implications for developing adaptive expertise in communication. Adv Health Sci Educ 2022; 27: 1331–1344.

62.

Partington

Cushion

. An investigation of the practice activities and coaching behaviors of professional top-level youth soccer coaches. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2013; 23: 374–382.

63.

Pulakos

Arad

Donovan

, et al. Adaptability in the workplace: development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. J Appl Psychol 2000; 85: 612–624.

64.

Gee

. Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. 2nd edn. New York, NY: Routledge, 2017.

65.

Deardorff

. Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization efforts. J Stud Int Educ 2006; 10: 241–266.

66.

Jowett

. 25 Years of relationship research in sport: the quality of the coach–athlete relationship as defined by closeness, commitment, complementarity and co-orientation (3+1Cs). Psychol Sport Exerc 2025; 80: 102909.

67.

Jowett

. The coach-athlete relationship in sport. London, UK: Routledge, 2025.

68.

Edmondson

. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q 1999; 44: 350–383.

69.

Taylor

Gretton

Sweeney

. Performance safety: conceptualising psychological safety when errors have consequences. J Appl Sport Psychol 2025; 37(1): 1–15.

70.

Fevre

Timperley

Twyford

, , et al. Leading powerful professional learning: responding to complexity with adaptive expertise. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2019.

71.

Meyer

Dalal

Hermida

. A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. J Manag 2010; 36: 121–140.

72.

Collins

Carson

Collins

. Metacognition and professional judgment and decision making in coaching: importance, application and evaluation. Int Sport Coach J 2016; 3: 355–361.

73.

Forsey

Boyd

, et al. Combining adaptive expertise and (critically) reflective practice to support the development of knowledge, skill, and society. Adv Health Sci Educ 2022; 27: 1265–1281.

74.

Hatano

Oura

. Commentary: reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educ Res 2003; 32: 26–29.

75.

Kashdan

Rottenberg

. Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clin Psychol Rev 2010; 30: 865–878.

76.

Macquet

A-C

Ferrand

Stanton

. Divide and rule: a qualitative analysis of the debriefing process in elite team sports. Appl Ergon 2015; 47: 76–86.

77.

Schempp

McCullick

Mason

. The development of expert coaching. In: Jones

(eds) The sports coach as educator: re-conceptualising sports coaching. London: Routledge, 2006, pp.145–161.

78.

Burnell

Ong

Pitt

, et al. Exploring the perceived benefits of engaging with spotlight personality profiling in performance domains. Sport Exerc Psychol Rev 2023; 18: 76–95.

79.

Taylor

Werthner

Culver

. A case study of a parasport coach and a life of learning. Int Sport Coach J 2014; 1: 127–138.